King Fishers Emerging... Reassurance Needed.

[quote]I would like to add that people who do take some of the amazing pictures of the King Fishers how many of them have a licence? According to English Nature you are required by law to have a licence to photograph breeding King Fishers and Barn Owls.
It is an offense to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site and there is a quota of 37 per year for Kingfishers one is not needed from a public hide and a lot of photographs have been taken from such a hide.[/quote]
The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird - the law is no more clear than that.
The border of our local park, is a river on the bend of which is a kingfisher nest (or I presume so, given the frequency of fly-past). The river is no more than 30 feet wide and people walk their dogs there and play in the river on a hot day. I would be amazed if they were breaking the law.
Now if in preparing for photography you cleared deadwood, cleared fallen branches, installed an artificial perch etc then that cold spook the birds and you could be seen to be 'intentionally disturbing' but simply standing there and photographing the bird as it goes about its daily duties it would be ridiculous to be prosecuted.
The problem is that someone makes an ill-informed comment on the internet and it becomes fact for no other reason than it is repeated so many times, almost in a 'here is an amazing fact...' sort of way and the more 'amazing' the faster it spreads.

Quote:I would like to add that people who do take some of the amazing pictures of the King Fishers how many of them have a licence? According to English Nature you are required by law to have a licence to photograph breeding King Fishers and Barn Owls.

It is an offense to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site and there is a quota of 37 per year for Kingfishers one is not needed from a public hide and a lot of photographs have been taken from such a hide.

The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird - the law is no more clear than that.
The border of our local park, is a river on the bend of which is a kingfisher nest (or I presume so, given the frequency of fly-past). The river is no more than 30 feet wide and people walk their dogs there and play in the river on a hot day. I would be amazed if they were breaking the law.
Now if in preparing for photography you cleared deadwood, cleared fallen branches, installed an artificial perch etc then that cold spook the birds and you could be seen to be 'intentionally disturbing' but simply standing there and photographing the bird as it goes about its daily duties it would be ridiculous to be prosecuted.

The problem is that someone makes an ill-informed comment on the internet and it becomes fact for no other reason than it is repeated so many times, almost in a 'here is an amazing fact...' sort of way and the more 'amazing' the faster it spreads.

[quote]It is an offence to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird [/quote]
Correct
.

Quote:It is an offence to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site

Wrong

Quote:The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird

[quote]It is an offence to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site
Wrong
The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird
Correct
.[/quote]
Amended
Kingfishers and Barn Owls are just two of the relatively uncommon species afforded the highest degree of legal protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If you “intentionally or recklessly” disturb a Kingfisher, Barn Owl or any other bird listed in Schedule 1 whilst trying to photograph it “in, on, at or near” the nest or whilst it has dependent young, and without the necessary Licence from Natural England (or other licensing authority), you may be committing a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to 6 months.
end of

Quote:It is an offence to photograph Kingfishers and all schedule 1 birds at or near the nest site

Wrong

The only thing the act says is it is an offence to 'intentionally disturb' the nesting site of a schedule 1 bird

Correct

.

Amended

Kingfishers and Barn Owls are just two of the relatively uncommon species afforded the highest degree of legal protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If you “intentionally or recklessly” disturb a Kingfisher, Barn Owl or any other bird listed in Schedule 1 whilst trying to photograph it “in, on, at or near” the nest or whilst it has dependent young, and without the necessary Licence from Natural England (or other licensing authority), you may be committing a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to 6 months.

Thanks for the link Coventryphotog.
A line of specific interest:
[quote]Additionally the use of bait or song tapes to attract birds to the camera, even though this is away from the nest, should not be under-taken in an occupied breeding territory. Use of such methods may be considered illegal with respect to Schedule 1 species. [/quote]
The key word here is 'may'. Still its a little of the topic of the original post.

Thanks for the link Coventryphotog.

A line of specific interest:

Quote:Additionally the use of bait or song tapes to attract birds to the camera, even though this is away from the nest, should not be under-taken in an occupied breeding territory. Use of such methods may be considered illegal with respect to Schedule 1 species.

The key word here is 'may'. Still its a little of the topic of the original post.